Wind-Powered Cargo Ships

https://singularityhub.com/2023/02/17/wind-powered-cargo-ships-are-the-future-debunking-4-myths-that-stand-in-the-way-of-cutting-emissions/

by Brajeshwar • 3 years ago

49 66 3 years ago

singularityhub.com

AustinDev• 3 years ago

As a sailor I've been watching these develop over the years and usual what is old is now new again. I can't imagine the latest advances in sailing, foiling, are going to be included anytime soon.

jillesvangurp• 3 years ago

They are already being included on an experimental basis to cut fuel usage. Not 100% but double digit percentages are possible. There are a few solutions that can be retrofitted to existing ships relatively easy.

kibwen• 3 years ago

I was about to laugh at the idea of a hydrofoil cargo ship, but then again I suppose that it's not theoretically impossible... even if we assume it would be highly impractical, it would be fun to see someone do the math and figure out exactly how impractical they would be.

DavidPeiffer• 3 years ago

https://www.boundarylayer.tech/

There's a Y Combinator supported company pursuing it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21662056

3rd comment is from an employee. Big benefit being quick turnaround. Load 160 containers and start the ship rather than loading/unloading a few thousand while the other tens of thousands of containers sit on the ship doing nothing.

hbossy2• 3 years ago

Wind has had a hard time competing with cheap heavy fuel oil—the toxic sludge that refineries have no other use for. What will happen to that fuel if they stop buying it?

WJW2• 3 years ago

Probably they'll find a way to burn it that stays within regulations. It's not impossible, just more expensive than sending it to the shipping industry.

The other scenario is interesting too btw: given that demand for combustion cars will be going down dramatically over the coming decades as countries regulate against them, the demand for petrol and diesel will also fall. Eventually, some refineries will shut down as there is no longer sufficient demand. That will also reduce the availability of these byproducts of refining and might eventually force shipping onto cleaner fuels as a side effect.

nroets• 3 years ago

I'm pretty sure petrol and diesel consumption will not fall significantly: As the price falls, people will drive more with larger cars in countries with less stringent environmental regulation.

Open cycle gas turbines will increasingly being use to generate electricity because it can quickly come online when solar and wind power is insufficient. They burn diesel in many parts of the world.

The real loser is coal.

kristopolous4• 3 years ago

The point of the exercise is to sunset the industry, not keep it afloat.

Phasing out oil as rapidly as possible is considered a victory

nradov9• 3 years ago

The petrochemical industry will not be sunsetted in our lifetimes. That is not a reasonable thing to expect or want. At most we can somewhat reduce the use of fossil fuels for power, heating, and transportation. Use of fossil fuels as chemical feedstocks will increase.

yardie• 3 years ago

Plastics, asphalt, fertilizer, sealants, complex hydrocarbon chemicals. I think everyone kind of underestimates how much of our lives is based on oil. Transport is the largest user, ~50% of each barrel. But the green revolution wouldn't be possible without it. If we stop using oil for fuel it will simply be refined into something else.

chris222• 3 years ago

At least for those other use cases the emissions are much less.

0wis• 3 years ago

Yes, oil is used everywhere. And one reason why is because it is dirt-cheap compared to other materials. However, price does not account for the environmental price paid.

That's why even the article is telling that sail cargo ship projects are betting on regulation. If the adopted regulation is a cargo tax, we will use less and less oil. Of course, today we still need it and oil will be used to create new green solution. Even with a very high carbon tax, I assume there will still be use cases for oil because it is a really incredible material and energy source.

"The most versatile substance on the planet and they used it to make a frisbee. Typical of humans." Helen Cho - not very scientific but so truly mind-blowing.

Edit : layout for readability

nine_k3• 3 years ago

Long hydrocarbon chains can be cut to shorter fragments [1]. The resulting substances can be used to produce all kinds of further chemical products, plastics, etc.

I suspect the last cracking reactors will be powered by abundant solar energy.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracking_(chemistry)

hbossy2• 3 years ago

On heavy oil from other article of that blog: Cargo ships are significant sources of air pollution globally, and their fuel oil is largely responsible. Pitch black and thick as molasses, “bunker” fuel is made from the dregs of the refining process. It’s also loaded with sulfur — the chemical that, when burned, produces noxious gases and fine particles that can harm human health and the environment, especially along highly trafficked areas. wasn't there an effort to release sulfur burning products to reduce global temperature?

WJW2• 3 years ago

There are more ways to contribute to human health and the environment than just global warming. But in this particular case, where exactly the sulfur oxides are released makes a lot of difference. Burning it in the middle of a bustling port city has radically different effects than releasing it at 30 km altitude.

ZeroGravitas• 3 years ago

Yes, one of the paridoxical aspects of climate change is that due to different aspects of coal pollution side effects, coal use is a short term decline and then a long term rise in heat. So phasing out coal can give opposite signals to what you expect.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031210074720.h...

More aerosols emitted into the atmosphere may lead to cooling," Allen continued. "But if these aerosols are able to combine with other compounds and ultimately form clouds, it could have a warming effect. There's a complex balance between warming and cooling."

nradov9• 3 years ago

The IMO has required merchant ships to use either low-sulphur fuel or exhaust scrubbers since 2020 in order to reduce certain emissions.

jacquesm• 3 years ago

Within the coastal zone they'll burn relatively clean fuel but as soon as they are out of national waters that junk gets burned. It's so thick that it needs to be pre-heated to be able to be injected.

Overtonwindow• 3 years ago

Related, if you're interested in learning more about cargo ships:

"Ninety Percent of Everything" by Rose George

Exceptional, in-depth, dive on cargo shipping, and a bit about how insanely bad they are for the environment.

dcroley• 3 years ago

While wind is nice for new ships, may a first step would be to stop using awful bunker fuel in the ships that already exist.

cptskippy• 3 years ago

This two options don't need to be explored serially.

lil_cain• 3 years ago

This is interesting, but I suspect Maersk's work on ammonia/Methanol engines may beat it to decarbonising shipping. Interestingly Maersk Oil tried using wind power a few years ago - iirc they found it got about a 10% reduction in fuel usage, which is not nothing, but it very far from perfect…

michaelcampbell• 3 years ago

If perfection was the goal, then I'd assert they had no real interest in it other than PR.

adolph3• 3 years ago

The key question the article doesn’t answer is if there is sufficient low atmospheric kinetic energy to move a cargo vehicle of sufficient density.

Cargo movement is performed at large scales to optimize the cargo to non cargo ratio within constraints of implicit requirements like keeping things dry, not squished, etc.

Can a vehicle maintain a similar cargo to noncargo ratio with an ability to capture sufficient wind?

My alternative would be to go for nuclear powered shipping. I think a country with a higher tolerance for proliferation risks like France or Iran could really transform the world by civilizing the tech in that way.

Gwypaas5• 3 years ago

Nuclear powered ships would be to putting a crew of ~20 low cost workers assembled from around the world with the inherent communication barriers that brings responsible for a reactor. That does not sound feasible.

Regarding sailing, scale is not the issue. Rather what limitations port operations impose. Combining containers with sails are indeed a challenge. Thus, shipping companies are looking into hydrogen, methanol, ammonia or synthetic fuels.

We bult sail ships weighing 10 000 tons a hundred years ago. Switching the sails to rigid and using modern engineering principles and there's no issue going the x10-40 of that which are current ships scale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preussen_(ship)

adolph3• 3 years ago

Still yet to see the math comparing low atmospheric kinetic energy to ship displacement through water. Yes, a large sailing vessel can be created. Can one be operated with sufficient cargo density?

The question of whether 20 odd folks of different nationalities can operate/maintain a reactor seems also to apply to sailing vessels. The change is maybe a matter of degree so is the continuation of current staffing practice more important than decarbonization?

Schroedingersat3• 3 years ago

To play nuclear shill's advocate, there might be a space where the crewing issues aren't a deal breaker.

If your fuel is comparatively cheap, there's no reason to slow steam anymore, and hull speed for a 400m long vessel is quite high. If your crew costs 20x as much but you're moving 5x as fast with half the fuel costs, it may pencil out.

nradov9• 3 years ago

Security concerns make putting nuclear reactors on merchant ships a non starter. Most nations will never allow such vessels into their ports.

Put the reactors on land where they can be properly guarded and operated by trained professionals. Use the resulting heat and power to manufacture synthetic carbon neutral liquid fuels for use by ships (and other parts of the transportation industry).

adolph3• 3 years ago

I could see how nuke powered synthetics could be a route, similar to the plan to one day make methane from atmospheric carbon and hydrogen. The LNG facilities might even be compatible.

I also visualize a future where nations that are interested in somewhat more risk transform shipping with higher speed bulk vessels. Maybe it’d be a way for North Korea to get out of the axis of evil and make a positive change in the world. They already have some skills doing lightening at sea for various smuggling activities.

bilsbie• 3 years ago

I’d expect you’d need to catch more wind than that to power something the size of a cargo ship.

The old sail vessels are basically all sail.

Are we violating conservation of energy here? Why or why not?

cma• 3 years ago

At low speeds does resistance to movement scale with turbulence/friction of surface area in contact with water rather than displaced volume? Bigger would then be better and need less and less power as a proportion to overall mass.

nine_k3• 3 years ago

As far as I could understood:

* These are wind-assisted ships, not 100% wind-powered ships. They save some (maybe quite some) fuel when the wind is favorable and the sails are engaged, and use conventional diesel power otherwise.

* Rigid surfaces make more efficient sails than soft fabric-based sails, so somehow smaller area is required.

twobitshifter• 3 years ago

Conservation of energy is what makes it possible, once the ship is moving you keep drawing energy from the wind.

here’s a small windpowered boat sailing https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nr7g-03iclA

You can also use more powerful wind from high above the sea. This article is on using high altitude kites for power.

https://www.maritime-executive.com/editorials/sailing-into-h...

carapace• 3 years ago

These folks are building a 250 metric tonnes capacity wooden sailing cargo vessel by hand: https://www.sailcargo.inc/en/ceiba

nradov9• 3 years ago

So it can carry about 0.05% of the cargo of a modern container ship, requires about as much crew, and takes longer to make deliveries. This is a cute little hobby project for someone but it's not a serious commercial venture.

Ekaros3• 3 years ago

Not to forget maintenance. Wooden ships are lot of work. After sometime you just keep replacing parts as they rot away...

mcculley• 3 years ago

One thing that is never addressed by these articles: How do the container cranes work around the sails? This would require big changes to ports. The CGI rendering of the ship in the article does not even make clear how the containers are put on and removed.

nradov9• 3 years ago

Sails are probably going to be most useful on ships that have relatively clear weather decks such as tankers, bulkers, and car carriers. Obviously it's impractical to install big sails / wings / rotors on a container ship due to cargo handing concerns, but they can use a kite type sail flown from the bow to get a little extra thrust when running downwind.

ianburrell• 3 years ago

The proposed sails and rotors seem to be vertical. They could take up a few rows of containers. They could avoid cranes by being shorter than the cranes. Sails would need to stand above the containers to work so maybe they could retract in port.

Sails would take up a good chunk of container space. Maybe could do something like slide containers under the arch for sail.

Ekaros3• 3 years ago

And on other hand how are the sails attached to the ships. And how much extra weight would these structures add? To get usable power from a sail the forces must be quite substantial.

Gwypaas5• 3 years ago

The ship in the article is a Ro-Ro car carrier. No cranes required so the optimal vessel to start with.

scottLobster• 3 years ago

As the article points out, there's no way short of carbon taxes to make this economically viable. Cargo ships keep getting bigger and bigger because scale increases efficiency, the limiting factor is the max size ports can accommodate.

Anything the size of these is never going to be wind powered: https://www.scf.com.au/news-articles/largest-shipping-contai... , the sails/foils required to get adequate propulsion would be impossible to maintain.

So at best this tech is going to be for relatively high-margin goods where shipping time is at a premium but not so prioritized as to spring for air transport. Like old-school clippers. Maybe there's a niche there, and I guess every little bit helps, but I imagine the total impact on climate change to be minimal.

jeffreyrogers• 3 years ago

the limiting factor is the max size ports can accommodate.

And the size of the canals (Suez, Panama) they have to pass through in some cases.

Edit: here's a good graphic showing max sizes for various types of ships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suezmax#/media/File:Ship_measu...

webdoodle2• 3 years ago

Unless the price of oil exceeds the value of the goods being delivered.

Ekaros3• 3 years ago

It wont for long time. For light and not too volumetric cargo the shipping in container is very very cheap. Like laughably little from price of item.

anton001• 3 years ago

The Norwegian shipping company Wallenius Wilhelmsen is currently working on a 220 meter RoRo vessel with sails [1].

Orcelle Wind is a wind-powered Pure Car Truck Carrier, a type of deepsea Roll On, Roll Off vessel. It will be 220 meters and have a capacity for over 7,000 cars, but will also be capable of carrying breakbulk and rolling equipment. Orcelle Wind is a crucial part of Wallenius Wilhelmsen’s fleet decarbonization strategy and the ambition is for it to commence sailing in late 2026 or early 2027.

Orcelle Wind is the first vessel from the Oceanbird concept (see link below) for primarily wind-powered vessels. The concept shows that it is theoretically possible to reduce emissions from vessels by up to 90 percent if all emissions-influencing factors are aligned.

[1]https://www.walleniuswilhelmsen.com/news/worlds-first-wind-p...

Wind-Powered Cargo Ships

Related Stories